2018 (2) TMI 238 - HC - Indian Laws

Notice of accusation for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - cheque presented for encashment but the same was dishonored - Held that - The accused has failed to prove that he owned any tractor and complainant was running spare part shop for that he had purchased any spare part from the complainant. As a matter of fact, no receipt regarding purchase of spare part from the shop of the complainant had been produced evidence - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonoured cheque - Conviction and sentencing of the accused - Appeal against the judgment.

Analysis:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured due to "Account Closed." The complainant presented evidence including the original cheque, memo of dishonour, legal notice, and postal receipt. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication, stating that the cheque was issued as security for a transaction involving spare parts of a tractor. However, the accused failed to provide any evidence to support his defense. The trial court convicted the accused, noting the lack of witness examination by the accused and failure to prove ownership of a tractor or transaction with the complainant.

During the appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction, emphasizing the accused's failure to substantiate his defense or rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judge highlighted the accused's omission to reply to the legal notice and the absence of evidence supporting the defense of the cheque being a security instrument. The judge concluded that the complainant had proven the case against the accused, and the trial court's decision was legally sound.

In the present petition challenging the judgments, the High Court found no legal flaws or irregularities in the lower court's decisions. The High Court determined that the judgments resulted from a proper evaluation of evidence and accurate application of the law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. The High Court concluded that there were no grounds to overturn the judgments through revisional jurisdiction, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.